• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Ruxandra Teslo Critiques One-Dimensional AI Optimism

    Argues humans seek agency and control beyond mere disease cures.

    SH
    RT
    2 Sources, 31d ago, first seen 31d ago

    TLDR

    Ruxandra Teslo, a fellow at Renaissance Philanthropy leading Clinical Trial Abundance, posted on X that the question of why people are not happier about AI because it could cure cancer reflects a uni-dimensional view. She stated that humans want control and agency over their lives, not merely comfort. Coming from a biology background, Teslo described curing disease as a noble mission yet maintained that this alone does not address what people value. The post appears amid visible replies on X discussing AI's broader effects. No further details on responses or updates appear in the supplied packet.

    Combined views

    50.6K

    2 Sources, first seen 31d ago

    Combined views

    50.6K

    2 Sources, first seen 31d ago

    427 likes
    427 likes
    67 comments
    88 saves
    44 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    67 comments
    88 saves
    44 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    2 Sources

    @RuxandraTeslo"Why aren't people happy about AI, it could cure cancer!" is a very uni-dimensional way of seeing the world, forgetting that humans want control and agency over their lives, not merely comfort. As someone coming from a biology background, who considers "curing disease" as a very noble mission, I still believe that the vague promise of "curing disease" is fundamentally not worth it if it comes with enslavement and permanent deprecation of human existence, when it comes to AI. I'm not making a claim as to how likely the latter is. I'm simply stating that loss of autonomy, control and agency, as well as spiritual immiseration, are worse outcomes than slower biomedical progress. My view is supported by polls. People fear losing their jobs, even in the presence of UBI. This can be explained by the fact that what they really fear is loss of control and autonomy. It's not merely about material circumstances, which would be solved by UBI.
    @sarthakghSam Altman on David Senra pod: “There are some people in the AI field who effectively say, ‘We're going to give the world a cure to all disease, and make stuff really cheap, in exchange for people giving up their autonomy and impact over the future and power, and also in the name of safety, and also just absolutely rampant inequality.” “This is a terrible sales pitch. This is a very anti-human sales pitch that somehow people feel willing to make.” “I also think a lot of the people building Al have been off saying there's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world-and yeah, we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first. Or it's like, 'Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary. We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated. And we certainly have not done a good job-even if people have had answers like saying, 'Well, there's going to be universal basic income, or work will be optional,' or whatever. There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less.” “The right approach is to say, ‘We want people deeply in control of the future. We want people deeply empowered. People are the whole point of this all.’” “It's like a very misanthropic thing to say we're going to just put all of our trust in this model and let it have all the power and decision-making over the world. I think there are some people in the world who think that's the right outcome.”

    2 Sources

    @RuxandraTeslo"Why aren't people happy about AI, it could cure cancer!" is a very uni-dimensional way of seeing the world, forgetting that humans want control and agency over their lives, not merely comfort. As someone coming from a biology background, who considers "curing disease" as a very noble mission, I still believe that the vague promise of "curing disease" is fundamentally not worth it if it comes with enslavement and permanent deprecation of human existence, when it comes to AI. I'm not making a claim as to how likely the latter is. I'm simply stating that loss of autonomy, control and agency, as well as spiritual immiseration, are worse outcomes than slower biomedical progress. My view is supported by polls. People fear losing their jobs, even in the presence of UBI. This can be explained by the fact that what they really fear is loss of control and autonomy. It's not merely about material circumstances, which would be solved by UBI.
    @sarthakghSam Altman on David Senra pod: “There are some people in the AI field who effectively say, ‘We're going to give the world a cure to all disease, and make stuff really cheap, in exchange for people giving up their autonomy and impact over the future and power, and also in the name of safety, and also just absolutely rampant inequality.” “This is a terrible sales pitch. This is a very anti-human sales pitch that somehow people feel willing to make.” “I also think a lot of the people building Al have been off saying there's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world-and yeah, we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first. Or it's like, 'Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary. We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated. And we certainly have not done a good job-even if people have had answers like saying, 'Well, there's going to be universal basic income, or work will be optional,' or whatever. There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less.” “The right approach is to say, ‘We want people deeply in control of the future. We want people deeply empowered. People are the whole point of this all.’” “It's like a very misanthropic thing to say we're going to just put all of our trust in this model and let it have all the power and decision-making over the world. I think there are some people in the world who think that's the right outcome.”